Delta off the Runway - LGA

Autothrust Blue said:
Ah, then there's a fundamental misunderstanding of what the mission is. Yes, the point is to deliver the people and do so reasonably on time, but the overwhelming mission is "don't kill anyone."
Click to expand...

I do whut I wont when I wont… DAMN!
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
No argument from me there man. I'm not defending their decisions.
Click to expand...

Autothrust Blue said:
No, sir, of course.
Click to expand...

What? Understanding on the internet!?

One of you must VANQUISH the other.
Finish-Him.gif

FINISH HIM!
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
True, though at my last company there are plenty of examples where metal was bent, and the crew was retrained, even with some very poor judgement.

The CHA windshear event comes to mind. Crew elected to continue in the face of a microburst with tower issuing multiple microburst alerts, in addition to a HUGE storm crossing the field. They got a massive wind shear at 30 feet, pusher, left wing stalled and contacted the runway. The only reason they didn't roll inverted and crash was the wind shear was so low that the runway "caught" them.

This was a case where you could say they were negligent. They made a bad decision, and continued in the face of red flags. But when you talked to the crew, they were so mission focused that they allowed themselves to get into a situation where they believed it was too late to go-around because the storm was "right there" and so big they thought it was safer to land than to go-around.

I guess my point with that example is that it's rarely just "cut and dry." They made some bad choices, and arguably the wrong choices at every single point, but they intended to do the right thing. They just effed it up. Repeatedly. So they were given some heavy retraining, and put on back to the line.

Their attitude factored heavily into the decision. They were shocked at the outcome and that it could happen to them. They thought they had made the best decisions possible "in the heat of the moment." They were open to retraining.
Click to expand...
In my limited experience:

Regional/Commuter - micromanaged on the day to day operation, however very lenient if you screw the pooch (like your example).
Major/Mainline - completely left alone by management, no second guessing, until you screw the pooch like your example. Then they don't mess around, and just fire you.

Both however are big on negligence, in other words if you intentionally disregard procedure etc. and it gets you in trouble, you're smoked. At a commuter it's time off without pay, at a major it's your job.

IMO, while I don't know the entire story of your example, I would've expected the company to fire those two guys up front making those bad decisions. There are numerous FOM violations in that story which bothers me. It shouldn't take a near death experience to "come to Jesus" and learn you shouldn't land in a thunderstorm with microburst warnings...(is that too harsh?).
 
Via the miracle of cyberspace and an ipad my company has issued new information on runway landing distances for "fair braking" at DCA and LGA. This revision was dated Feb 15 and is included in the airport advisory pages.

An interesting note for the A321 is a very large blacked out area of the chart for higher weights and also noticeably absent was any data for "poor" or lower braking for LGA and DCA for any aircraft. That means if it's below fair you don't land or takeoff.

We get a lot of updates that are not all that useful, this one is. It's max auto-brake setting Ref+5 data for all Airbus at those two airports with "Fair Braking" reported. One quick look at the graph gives you an idea if you are good to go or not. There is a 15% buffer built in. This is a good tool, a lot of charts are not user friendly but this one is.
 
Zapphod Beblebrox said:
We get a lot of updates that are not all that useful, this one is. It's max auto-brake setting Ref+5 data for all Airbus at those two airports with "Fair Braking" reported. One quick look at the graph gives you an idea if you are good to go or not.
Click to expand...
Are you guys allowed to use max auto braking when landing? We are not...medium only.
 
Zapphod Beblebrox said:
Via the miracle of cyberspace and an ipad my company has issued new information on runway landing distances for "fair braking" at DCA and LGA. This revision was dated Feb 15 and is included in the airport advisory pages.

An interesting note for the A321 is a very large blacked out area of the chart for higher weights and also noticeably absent was any data for "poor" or lower braking for LGA and DCA for any aircraft. That means if it's below fair you don't land or takeoff.

We get a lot of updates that are not all that useful, this one is. It's max auto-brake setting Ref+5 data for all Airbus at those two airports with "Fair Braking" reported. One quick look at the graph gives you an idea if you are good to go or not. There is a 15% buffer built in. This is a good tool, a lot of charts are not user friendly but this one is.
Click to expand...
Safety, accomplished through regulatory fiat and a stroke of the Vice President Flight Operations or System Chief Pilot's pen, and then distributed through the series of tubes!

(as opposed to having a truly adequate aerodrome in the New York area...)
 
wheelsup said:
In my limited experience:

Regional/Commuter - micromanaged on the day to day operation, however very lenient if you screw the pooch (like your example).
Major/Mainline - completely left alone by management, no second guessing, until you screw the pooch like your example. Then they don't mess around, and just fire you.

Both however are big on negligence, in other words if you intentionally disregard procedure etc. and it gets you in trouble, you're smoked. At a commuter it's time off without pay, at a major it's your job.

IMO, while I don't know the entire story of your example, I would've expected the company to fire those two guys up front making those bad decisions. There are numerous FOM violations in that story which bothers me. It shouldn't take a near death experience to "come to Jesus" and learn you shouldn't land in a thunderstorm with microburst warnings...(is that too harsh?).
Click to expand...


Ahhhhhh, WHAT???

First, in my experience, while some regionals are great safety cultures, not many were until the Colgan Accident.

Majors/Mainlines (and I've been at two) have fantastic safety cultures and are really open to retraining a variety of incidents. I'm really surprised you would say something like that from where you are at. I thought they had a great safety culture.

Furthermore, just because you have multiple FOM violations doesn't mean you fire the crew. So yes, you are being to harsh.
 
Seggy said:
Ahhhhhh, WHAT???

First, in my experience, while some regionals are great safety cultures, not many were until the Colgan Accident.

Majors/Mainlines (and I've been at two) have fantastic safety cultures and are really open to retraining a variety of incidents. I'm really surprised you would say something like that from where you are at. I thought they had a great safety culture.

Furthermore, just because you have multiple FOM violations doesn't mean you fire the crew. So yes, you are being to harsh.
Click to expand...

No he isn't being too harsh IMO and in a merit based system, it would easily be a fire-able offense.

I like whatever airline Wheelsup is working at. The more we police our own and let dangerous and/or downright negligent pilots be fired, the better off our industry will be.
 
PhilosopherPilot said:
True, though at my last company there are plenty of examples where metal was bent, and the crew was retrained, even with some very poor judgement.

The CHA windshear event comes to mind. Crew elected to continue in the face of a microburst with tower issuing multiple microburst alerts, in addition to a HUGE storm crossing the field. They got a massive wind shear at 30 feet, pusher, left wing stalled and contacted the runway. The only reason they didn't roll inverted and crash was the wind shear was so low that the runway "caught" them.

This was a case where you could say they were negligent. They made a bad decision, and continued in the face of red flags. But when you talked to the crew, they were so mission focused that they allowed themselves to get into a situation where they believed it was too late to go-around because the storm was "right there" and so big they thought it was safer to land than to go-around.

I guess my point with that example is that it's rarely just "cut and dry." They made some bad choices, and arguably the wrong choices at every single point, but they intended to do the right thing. They just effed it up. Repeatedly. So they were given some heavy retraining, and put on back to the line.

Their attitude factored heavily into the decision. They were shocked at the outcome and that it could happen to them. They thought they had made the best decisions possible "in the heat of the moment." They were open to retraining.
Click to expand...

No offense but these two shouldn't be flying passengers.

"The road to hell was paved with good intentions"

All that matters is them making bad choices, and the wrong choices at every single point. Willful disregard for FOM, etc. They should be fired. But as usual, the union will get the company to "retrain" these individuals and get them back on line in no time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top